Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #23488 > unrolled thread

Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook!

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-08 13:38 -0400
    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-08 13:48 -0400
      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2012-04-08 17:04 -0500
        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-04-08 18:26 -0400
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! HelpfulHarry@BusyWorking.com (Helpful Harry) - 2012-04-09 12:52 +1200
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:13 -0500
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-09 19:39 -0700
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-10 10:57 -0500
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-10 09:24 -0700
        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-08 20:33 -0400
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-04-08 21:11 -0400
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-08 18:18 -0700
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-09 06:58 -0400
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-09 08:26 -0700
                  Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-09 13:35 -0400
                  Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:23 -0500
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:24 -0500
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) - 2012-04-14 03:48 +0000
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:21 -0500
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-09 19:33 -0700
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-09 13:15 -0500
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-09 21:22 -0400
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-04-10 18:08 -0400
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-10 18:35 -0400
                  Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-10 19:09 -0500
                    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-10 17:32 -0700
                      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-10 19:55 -0500
                        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-04-10 20:03 -0700
                    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2012-04-10 21:25 -0400
                      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-04-10 22:42 -0400
                        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-11 08:10 -0400
                        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-11 12:03 -0400
                          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2012-04-11 18:27 -0400
                            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-12 12:08 -0400
                              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2012-04-13 17:54 -0700
                                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-14 11:49 -0400
                            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-12 20:14 +0200
                        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-11 12:55 -0400
                          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2012-04-11 15:21 -0700
                      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-11 10:59 +0200
                      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-04-11 13:04 -0400
                    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2012-04-11 10:23 -0700
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2012-04-10 23:21 -0400
                  Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2012-04-20 16:09 -0400
                Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> - 2012-04-11 12:43 -0400
    Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2012-04-08 21:21 +0000
      Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-09 11:59 -0400
        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2012-04-09 09:11 -0700
          Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-10 11:34 -0400
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2012-04-10 11:15 -0700
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2012-04-10 17:16 -0400
              Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2012-04-11 11:08 -0400
            Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> - 2012-04-11 11:13 +0200
        Re: Bet You're Getting Paid Less Than Tim Cook! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-09 13:33 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#23559

On 4/8/12 7:33 PM, in article
OuKdnY2iko7-sx_SnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Kurt Ullman"
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <timmcn-B54394.17042908042012@news.iphouse.com>,
>  Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> 
>> In article <-7mdnYRDH8HKUhzSnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2012-04-08 13:38 , Fred Moore wrote:
>>>> Top 50 Exec Pay (Cook's #1)
>>>> 
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/08/business/executive-compens
>>>> ation-2012.html>
>>> 
>>> Read that this am.  No wonder the US Gini index is so tilted.
>> 
>> Michael Moore was just about accurate.
> 
> The thing that MM and all the others (especially the NYT ignore is that
> current exec compensation is almost entirely due to a change in tax
> policy in the mid-80s that was supposed to address problems in executive
> pay. 
>     It changed tax laws to effectively cap executive salaries at $1
> million by making that the highest amount the Corp could deduct (and if
> you look at K-1, most actual salaries still tend to be around $1 million
> to this day). 
>      Then, in an attempt to align the interests of management with the
> interests of shareholder, they tax-favored stock options and
> peformance-based bonuses. So, instead of being paid largely a salary (to
> run the company) they were paid largely in options and bonuses (to run
> the stock price). It wasn't two years later before the first
> book-cooking scandal erupted.
>      Two other major outcomes. (1). Executive's total compensation went
> to areas that even the most captive Board wouldn't have had the balls to
> pay them.  The second thing was the most interesting as the vaunted
> executive pay to average worker pay ratio went through the roof. During
> the 60s, 70s and early 80s, it had meandered around in range of 20-30
> times. In the mid-80s (within a couple of years of enactment) it had
> risen to more than 150 times and topped out in the late 90s around 300
> times, still better than 250 the last time I looked.
>       Tax policy that was supposed to reign in executive pay did exactly
> the opposite, yet the COngress skates responsibility.

Moore is an overfed, presumptuous hypocrite fool.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23574

On 04-09-2012 14:15, George Kerby wrote:
> Moore is an overfed, presumptuous hypocrite fool.

Michael Moore is Rush Limbaugh's mirror image.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Pat's Polemics
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23602

In article <jm0204$aq4$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 04-09-2012 14:15, George Kerby wrote:

> > Moore is an overfed, presumptuous hypocrite fool.
> 
> Michael Moore is Rush Limbaugh's mirror image.

Only someone oblivious to Limbaugh's fevered ranting could write that 
with a straight face.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be
dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
(James Madison)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23605

On 2012-04-10 18:08 , D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article<jm0204$aq4$1@dont-email.me>,
>   Wes Groleau<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 04-09-2012 14:15, George Kerby wrote:
>
>>> Moore is an overfed, presumptuous hypocrite fool.
>>
>> Michael Moore is Rush Limbaugh's mirror image.
>
> Only someone oblivious to Limbaugh's fevered ranting could write that
> with a straight face.

I'll take MM over RL any day - but to believe MM presents the 
unvarnished truth of any matter is incredible.


-- 
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
  I said I didn't know."
                           -Samuel Clemens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23606

On 4/10/12 5:35 PM, in article
C7WdnTfulcE6KBnSnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012-04-10 18:08 , D.F. Manno wrote:
>> In article<jm0204$aq4$1@dont-email.me>,
>>   Wes Groleau<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org>  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 04-09-2012 14:15, George Kerby wrote:
>> 
>>>> Moore is an overfed, presumptuous hypocrite fool.
>>> 
>>> Michael Moore is Rush Limbaugh's mirror image.
>> 
>> Only someone oblivious to Limbaugh's fevered ranting could write that
>> with a straight face.
> 
> I'll take MM over RL any day - but to believe MM presents the
> unvarnished truth of any matter is incredible.
> 

Your choice about Rush: as expected for a Canadian liberal.

*Anything* that MMFatboy presents is absolutely NOT close to being
creditable. That waste of protoplasm is of no value whatsoever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23608

In article <CBAA35F6.852F0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> *Anything* that MMFatboy presents is absolutely NOT close to being
> creditable. That waste of protoplasm is of no value whatsoever.

Whether or not that's true about MM, it certainly is true about RL.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23609

On 4/10/12 7:32 PM, in article
michelle-6D6A3F.17323110042012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <CBAA35F6.852F0%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> *Anything* that MMFatboy presents is absolutely NOT close to being
>> creditable. That waste of protoplasm is of no value whatsoever.
> 
> Whether or not that's true about MM, it certainly is true about RL.

You are living a lie. But it isn't your fault, you have been 'diverted' and
cannot open to others' opinions. But we love ya' anyway...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23614

In article <CBAA40BF.8531B%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> *Anything* that MMFatboy presents is absolutely NOT close to being 
> >> creditable. That waste of protoplasm is of no value whatsoever.
> > 
> > Whether or not that's true about MM, it certainly is true about RL.
> 
> You are living a lie. But it isn't your fault, you have been 'diverted' 
> and cannot open to others' opinions. But we love ya' anyway...

According to Limbaugh, any woman who wants to use birth control is a slut, 
and any woman who wants health insurance to cover birth control is a whore.

He provided Sandra Fluke as an exemplar, but he couldn't even get her name 
right; he called her Susan Fluke.

Oh, and I am open to other people's opinions, but when those opinions 
diverge from facts, I dismiss them.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23611

George Kerby wrote:

> Your choice about Rush: as expected for a Canadian liberal.

Hold on to your horses because when Canada next votes, ther are good
odds that  George W Harper and his neo-con agenda will be thrown out and
replaced by the current opposition: the NDP. The NDP is more to the left
than the Liberals.  So I can see the Repulicans in the USA accusing
Canada of being a communist nation and threathening the american way.
They are very good with that type of rethoric.

That's OK because if they dislike Canada so much, we can turn off the
oil tap and see how long the US survives.

> *Anything* that MMFatboy presents is absolutely NOT close to being
> creditable. That waste of protoplasm is of no value whatsoever.

Michael Moore is tough provoking and is meant to get you to ask questions.

Unfortunatly, a large contingent in the USA have been conditioned to
dismiss anything he asks so they never question the spin made by
republicans.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23613

JF Mezei:
> ....So I can see the Repulicans in the USA accusing
> Canada of being a communist nation and threathening the american way.
> They are very good with that type of rethoric.
> 
> That's OK because if they dislike Canada so much, we can turn off the
> oil tap and see how long the US survives.

I should be concerned as to how long Canada would survive. Remember
Pierre Trudeau's mouse-elephant parable. Don't be surprised if one day
god tells a United Statesian president--and he could be a Democrat as
well as a Republican--that Canada's vast resources were in fact meant
for us, that we have a god-given right to them, and we should go get
them. Goodbye, Canada.

It's the way of the world now. God takes the United Statesian side and
suddenly nation x's god turns out to be a weak or even phony god but
our god is a real ass-kicker, and off we go. No, we don't win, because
our god decides to let us do the ass-kicking while he distributes the
booty to the 1% and we find that the only way to win such wars as we
get into these days is to kill everyone in the nation whose god our god
dislikes, but, as I said, our god won't do that her/himself, and the
only way that we can do it is to slag every square cm of the country
with nukes. The industries that pull our strings won't allow that
because of the relatively long half-life of some isotopes and the
impossibility (in Canada's case) of making plywood from charred trees
and the cost of rebuilding the oil infrastructure. Nonetheless, only a
psychopath's whim stands between Canada and oblivion, so do be careful.

Consider, too, global climate change. The Confederacy will be among the
first places to flood and/or become too hot. How would you like it if
we annexed you as a cooler climate for the population of the states
from Arizona to the Atlantic?

I was talking to a couple of uniformed Canadian soldiers in a Maryland
convenience store recently. "Come to take us over?" I asked. "No, just
advanced scouts. We're recommending against a takeover. Not much worth
taking." "No shit."

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23631

In article <100420122242211464%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> I should be concerned as to how long Canada would survive. Remember
> Pierre Trudeau's mouse-elephant parable. Don't be surprised if one day
> god tells a United Statesian president--and he could be a Democrat as
> well as a Republican--that Canada's vast resources were in fact meant
> for us, that we have a god-given right to them, and we should go get
> them. Goodbye, Canada.

    And it is well documented that we have plans for invading Canada and 
have had for years. (g).

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23638

In article <100420122242211464%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> JF Mezei:
> > ....So I can see the Repulicans in the USA accusing
> > Canada of being a communist nation and threathening the american way.
> > They are very good with that type of rethoric.
> > 
> > That's OK because if they dislike Canada so much, we can turn off the
> > oil tap and see how long the US survives.
> 
> I should be concerned as to how long Canada would survive. Remember
> Pierre Trudeau's mouse-elephant parable. Don't be surprised if one day
> god tells a United Statesian president--and he could be a Democrat as
> well as a Republican--that Canada's vast resources were in fact meant
> for us, that we have a god-given right to them, and we should go get
> them. Goodbye, Canada.

Reminds me of a bit in one of John Oliver's (regular guest on The Daily 
Show) standup shows I saw on Comedy Central. The topic was political 
arithmetic: 'Kenya has 3 apples. The United States decides it wants 
those apples. How many apples does Kenya have?' Loud guffaws from the 
audience.

> It's the way of the world now. God takes the United Statesian side and
> suddenly nation x's god turns out to be a weak or even phony god but
> our god is a real ass-kicker, and off we go. No, we don't win, because
> our god decides to let us do the ass-kicking while he distributes the
> booty to the 1% and we find that the only way to win such wars as we
> get into these days is to kill everyone in the nation whose god our god
> dislikes, but, as I said, our god won't do that her/himself, and the
> only way that we can do it is to slag every square cm of the country
> with nukes. The industries that pull our strings won't allow that
> because of the relatively long half-life of some isotopes and the
> impossibility (in Canada's case) of making plywood from charred trees
> and the cost of rebuilding the oil infrastructure. Nonetheless, only a
> psychopath's whim stands between Canada and oblivion, so do be careful.
> 
> Consider, too, global climate change. The Confederacy will be among the
> first places to flood and/or become too hot. How would you like it if
> we annexed you as a cooler climate for the population of the states
> from Arizona to the Atlantic?
> 
> I was talking to a couple of uniformed Canadian soldiers in a Maryland
> convenience store recently. "Come to take us over?" I asked. "No, just
> advanced scouts. We're recommending against a takeover. Not much worth
> taking." "No shit."

Very well written, Davoud. I'll keep it handy to give me a chuckle on 
one of those long summer nights when I have the AC set to 68F and a nice 
fire burning merrily away in the fireplace using that plentiful Canadian 
natural gas. (Ah, Richard Nixon, now _there_ was a roll model!) 

I would have emigrated to Canada long ago if I didn't have to pledge 
allegiance to the English royal family. WTF??? 

'I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to 
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and 
Successors,...' 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Citizenship_(Canada)>

Okay, I understand the economic benefits of the British Commonwealth, 
though it's probably not as useful as it used to be. But swearing to die 
to defend Little Lizzy and Chucky's polo ponies? No thanks.

Anyway, it's not the United Statesian god that's leading the charge to 
conquer Canada. It's the nefarious and devious Gary Bettman, 
commissioner of the NHL, native of New York City. He's gutting Canada's 
national sport. (What percentage of the teams in the NHL are from Canada 
now? All your teams are belong to us! And what percetange of them 
_didn't_ make the playoffs?) Eviscerate and conquer.

(But the playoffs start TONIGHT!   WHOOPEEEEE!   Go Red Wings!)

And, just to bring this thread back on topic: While Gary Bettman isn't 
making as much a Tim Cook, he's likely making a helluva lot more than 
any of us.

-- 
So let me get this straight?
Mandates to pay for American healthcare are unconstitutional.
But mandates to pay for American war crimes are our patriotic duty?
Sieg heil, Amereicha!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23664

Fred Moore:
> Very well written, Davoud. I'll keep it handy to give me a chuckle on 
> one of those long summer nights when I have the AC set to 68F and a nice 
> fire burning merrily away in the fireplace using that plentiful Canadian 
> natural gas. (Ah, Richard Nixon, now _there_ was a roll model!) 

My little polemic does not deserve your kind attention.

> I would have emigrated to Canada long ago if I didn't have to pledge 
> allegiance to the English royal family. WTF??? 

> 'I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to 
> Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and 
> Successors,...' 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Citizenship_(Canada)>
> 
> Okay, I understand the economic benefits of the British Commonwealth, 
> though it's probably not as useful as it used to be. But swearing to die 
> to defend Little Lizzy and Chucky's polo ponies? No thanks.

I have made several forays into Canada looking at real estate. But
where would I live in the winter!? I'm wasting as much fossil energy as
I possibly can do in order to hasten global warming and make Canada
more temperate in the winter (for myself; I don't really know or care
much about seals or polar bears, and if I did, I would happily note
that zoos are using energy at a prodigious rate to provide an
artificially chilled environment for northern species).

As for pledging allegiance to HM the Q, et al., no matter where you
live you're going to pledge allegiance to someone or something. We
United Statesians are *requested* to pledge allegiance to a piece of
cloth that is said to represent both god and nation. I'll have nothing
to do with it. We are *required* to pledge allegiance to Israel*
because Israel has our president and our legislature by the throat. I
would trade allegiance to HM the Q for allegiance to Israel any day
(after having lived in Israel for some years). And remember that oaths
of allegiance are just words meant to satisfy jingoists; you have to
mouth the words, but they're too dumb to figure out what you are
thinking.

> Anyway, it's not the United Statesian god that's leading the charge to 
> conquer Canada. It's the nefarious and devious Gary Bettman, 
> commissioner of the NHL, native of New York City. He's gutting Canada's 
> national sport. (What percentage of the teams in the NHL are from Canada 
> now? All your teams are belong to us! And what percetange of them 
> _didn't_ make the playoffs?) Eviscerate and conquer.

Bettman, as a major figure in the "sports" industry, is an agent of god.
 
> (But the playoffs start TONIGHT!   WHOOPEEEEE!   Go Red Wings!)

Yes!

> And, just to bring this thread back on topic: While Gary Bettman isn't 
> making as much a Tim Cook, he's likely making a helluva lot more than 
> any of us.

Yes, well, we don't work directly for god, do we?

*We American atheists are idiots. We outnumber Jews, Mormons, Muslims,
and Pentecostals combined, and we have negative political power. Only
idiots could let such potential strength go to waste.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23724

In article <110420121827365963%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> As for pledging allegiance to HM the Q, et al., no matter where you
> live you're going to pledge allegiance to someone or something. We
> United Statesians are *requested* to pledge allegiance to a piece of
> cloth that is said to represent both god and nation. I'll have nothing
> to do with it. We are *required* to pledge allegiance to Israel*
> because Israel has our president and our legislature by the throat. I
> would trade allegiance to HM the Q for allegiance to Israel any day
> (after having lived in Israel for some years). And remember that oaths
> of allegiance are just words meant to satisfy jingoists; you have to
> mouth the words, but they're too dumb to figure out what you are
> thinking.

Very much agreed. I seldom go to sporting events because I hate standing 
for The Tar Mangled Spanner. At least in the US we don't play the 
national anthem before *movies* like they do in lots of countries.

> *We American atheists are idiots. We outnumber Jews, Mormons, Muslims,
> and Pentecostals combined, and we have negative political power. Only
> idiots could let such potential strength go to waste.

Yes, if only we atheists could get organized... At least the Freedom 
From Religion Foundation exists <http://www.ffrf.org/>.

-- 
Remember: Jesus was a Socialist!  
     Acts 4: 32-35
     Matthew 19:24
     Matthew 25:31-46

(I just love it when atheists quote scripture!)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23780

In article <fmoore-FDD5F5.12084612042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> > *We American atheists are idiots. We outnumber Jews, Mormons, Muslims,
> > and Pentecostals combined, and we have negative political power. Only
> > idiots could let such potential strength go to waste.
> 
> Yes, if only we atheists could get organized... At least the Freedom 
> From Religion Foundation exists <http://www.ffrf.org/>.

There is also

the Council for Secular Humanism <http://www.secularhumanism.org/> 

and the American Humanist Association <http://www.americanhumanist.org/>

-- 
Jim Gibson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23799

In article <130420121754389121%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
 Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <fmoore-FDD5F5.12084612042012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> 
> > > *We American atheists are idiots. We outnumber Jews, Mormons, Muslims,
> > > and Pentecostals combined, and we have negative political power. Only
> > > idiots could let such potential strength go to waste.
> > 
> > Yes, if only we atheists could get organized... At least the Freedom 
> > From Religion Foundation exists <http://www.ffrf.org/>.
> 
> There is also
> 
> the Council for Secular Humanism <http://www.secularhumanism.org/> 
> 
> and the American Humanist Association <http://www.americanhumanist.org/>

Thanks for the links, Jim. For some reason I have a problem with the 
word 'humanism/t', despite the fact that I generally agree with their 
goals. Seems too much like these groups are just trying to be an 
alternate religion or that the marketing department somehow got the 
upper hand and was able to banish 'atheism/t'. But I'm picking nits. I'm 
for any *reasonable* group which opposes the bible thumpers.

-- 
The problem with Crapitalism is there is an infinite supply 
of vicious, greedy bastards demanding everything for themselves
and happy to let everyone else pay the price.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23728

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:27:36 -0400, Davoud wrote:

> I have made several forays into Canada looking at real estate. But where
> would I live in the winter!? I'm wasting as much fossil energy as I
> possibly can do in order to hasten global warming and make Canada more
> temperate in the winter (for myself; I don't really know or care much
> about seals or polar bears, and if I did, I would happily note that zoos
> are using energy at a prodigious rate to provide an artificially chilled
> environment for northern species).

I don't think I'd be keen on the winters either.  Several years ago I 
read about a young Canadian lady who spent all her winters underground, 
mainly in shopping malls.  I really would not like that as a life style.
 
> As for pledging allegiance to HM the Q, et al., no matter where you live
> you're going to pledge allegiance to someone or something. We United
> Statesians are *requested* to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth that
> is said to represent both god and nation. I'll have nothing to do with
> it. We are *required* to pledge allegiance to Israel* because Israel has
> our president and our legislature by the throat. I would trade
> allegiance to HM the Q for allegiance to Israel any day (after having
> lived in Israel for some years). And remember that oaths of allegiance
> are just words meant to satisfy jingoists; you have to mouth the words,
> but they're too dumb to figure out what you are thinking.

I think I pledged allegiance to HM the Queen when I was in the Boy 
Scouts, but I was too young to understand what it meant.  The UK armed 
forces also swear allegiance to the monarch, which is slightly odd, 
because the Civil List was implemented specifically to ensure a reigning 
monarch couldn't afford to raise a private army.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list>

Incidentally, it amuses me when the British moan about what the Royal 
family costs the taxpayer.  In reality, the state has snaffled all their 
income and given them a limited allowance instead.



-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23641

On 2012-04-10 22:42 , Davoud wrote:
> JF Mezei:
>> ....So I can see the Repulicans in the USA accusing
>> Canada of being a communist nation and threathening the american way.
>> They are very good with that type of rethoric.
>>
>> That's OK because if they dislike Canada so much, we can turn off the
>> oil tap and see how long the US survives.
>
> I should be concerned as to how long Canada would survive. Remember
> Pierre Trudeau's mouse-elephant parable. Don't be surprised if one day
> god tells a United Statesian president--and he could be a Democrat as
> well as a Republican--that Canada's vast resources were in fact meant
> for us, that we have a god-given right to them, and we should go get
> them. Goodbye, Canada.

There is a Tom Clancy novel (descendant of "Hunt for Red October" in the 
"Ryan" series) called the "eBear and the Dragon".  In the book the 
Chinese lust after the natural resources (oil, gas, mineral, lumber) in 
Siberia and plot to upset the Russian government prior to invasion. 
They referred to Siberia as "The northern resource area."

As I was reading it I could only think of our elephant neighbor to the 
south thinking of us as its "northern resource area."

-- 
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
  I said I didn't know."
                           -Samuel Clemens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23659

On 4/11/12   PDT 9:55 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-04-10 22:42 , Davoud wrote:
>> JF Mezei:
>>> ....So I can see the Repulicans in the USA accusing
>>> Canada of being a communist nation and threathening the american way.
>>> They are very good with that type of rethoric.
>>>
>>> That's OK because if they dislike Canada so much, we can turn off the
>>> oil tap and see how long the US survives.
>>
>> I should be concerned as to how long Canada would survive. Remember
>> Pierre Trudeau's mouse-elephant parable. Don't be surprised if one day
>> god tells a United Statesian president--and he could be a Democrat as
>> well as a Republican--that Canada's vast resources were in fact meant
>> for us, that we have a god-given right to them, and we should go get
>> them. Goodbye, Canada.
>
> There is a Tom Clancy novel (descendant of "Hunt for Red October" in the
> "Ryan" series) called the "eBear and the Dragon". In the book the
> Chinese lust after the natural resources (oil, gas, mineral, lumber) in
> Siberia and plot to upset the Russian government prior to invasion. They
> referred to Siberia as "The northern resource area."
>
> As I was reading it I could only think of our elephant neighbor to the
> south thinking of us as its "northern resource area."

Nah. Just for comedians, natural gas and maple syrup...... :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23629

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:25:59 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Michael Moore is tough provoking and is meant to get you to ask
> questions.

Well said.  I regret that I didn't see "Bowling for Columbine" when it 
was in the cinemas, but I watched it on telly a few years later.

There was something about the guy I didn't like (manipulation comes to 
mind), but he did make me ask myself questions, so at the end of the day 
he had done a good job.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web